I'm curious if you opposed the "alarming increases in federal power" and were for "condeming [sic] the...(increase)...of our national debt" while Bush was in power? Or are these hallow, hot-air, partisan ramblings from you? Let be honest here. Neither Republican or Democratic are for small government.

Unlike others who CLAIM to be non-partisan, I actually am... I heartily condemn many things Bush did in his term. Federal power did increase alarmingly under Bush. He expanded government in ways that should have never been allowed. Does that satisfy you? Both parties suck. We need at least ONE party to take a stand though and start paring back the size, scope, and power of government. That sure isn't going to be Obama's democrat party though.

GW and the neocons spent enough money on Iraq and Afghanistan to send manned missions to mars and back... twice? But that's cool, no problem, because ultimately, if we're killing brown people, it's all good, right WP? Spending lots of money on our own country? BAD BAD BAD.

As well as being ignorant, it seems you're also quite the racist. Unlike you, I don't place arbitrary value on human beings based on how much melanin is in their skin.

Regardless, Bush's rampant over-spending was horrible for the country. However, the bulk of Bush spending was NOT on the Iraq war. It was on massive increases to government social programs. But Obama makes Bush look like he was a miser, quintupling America's debt in 5 months. Spending 1.4 trillion we don't have? BAD BAD BAD!

I note wryly that neo-libs were all fired up about our deficit while Bush was in office. They could care less about it now. That as much as anything proves to me that most neo-libs are ignorant zombies who only care about an issue when some neo-lib flack tells them to care. Obama has told them to stop caring about debt spending, so the zombies have dutifully agreed. Pathetic.

update, if anyone is interested:
Without going into too much detail, both my husband and I used this product for several months. Results? wow.
Hubby already was able to tan with the sun, so he started darkening right away on a very low dose. No remarkable side effects on his part other than iron rods (expected, wink wink nudge nudge) and after three months his blood pressure was just a touch high so we are giving it a rest.
Me? As I have said before, I have never met anyone whiter than me. If I have any melanin naturally in my body I'd be surprised. Sunburns are a big deal. But I apparently do have melanocyte receptors because I did get a tan for the first time in my life. It was a very interesting and enriching experience.
From the start I used a very low dose and right away had several "cons" including incredible muscle aches (ibuprofen helped) and severe teeth grinding for some reason, especially at night. I found that laying in the sun for at least 30 minutes a day helped, which in and of itself was odd because I didn't burn at all as I always have. It took 8 weeks for me to notice the color. My hair even started growing out darker! I found that PT141 also greatly affected my thoughts. Libido was tremendously enhanced in that regard, if I had to pick one word to describe it I would say "yummy". I felt much more alive. I also found that I could do a lot of physical labor or work out and not get sore at all. It undeniably did something to my muscles and I had (and still have after being off of it for a couple of months) much greater strength. The teeth grinding was enough to make me take a break, however, and it quit when I stopped. I have found no mention of this from other people's stories on the melanotan message board either, so that's strange.
If anyone is considering doing research of their own, write me and I'll share what I learned!

should have said "McCain/Obama"

Have we already forgotten history? Seriously people this was in the last century, your grandparents/parents probably fought in this war. The Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Both Obama and McCain are socialists (see their vote on the $700 billion bailout, among many others), this clip doesn't even make sense. If anything it should be Obama's name on the button as he is the larger socialist of the two.

Hitler's hatred for other races was rooted in socialism not the amount of melanin in someones skin, he thought they were undesirable to the community. This is what collectivists (socialists) believe, that the majority can oppress the minority for the "good" of the community.

O.K., it seems to be the moment when I must reveal the family SECRET!! My great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, Grandfather was NEGROID!! This is one of my GREAT claims to superiority!! EVERY TIME I sire a new child (which has been frequent and prolific) I have hoped that the the child would have an extremly profusively activation of melanin! Unfortunately, in each case, the child was deficient! I intend to KEEP TRYING!!!

Maroons do come, in all shapes, sizes, creeds, and degree of melanin.....take off the burka when ya say that shit baby.....and fer crissakes, get a cat to torture instead of torturing yerself....

This bees fucking inane.....nice flam, aspertam.....

shit!

just succeeded in finally getting this song completely out of my head, earlier this year.
alright. upvote, for archival purposes only. and no playlist for you!

btw, never realized it was actually "whoomp".
always thought it was "woop", "whoop", or possibly "wewp".

but then, i am white.
or, as i prefer to be called, melanin-challenged.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think I might have harboured some latent racism in my early 20s. I read that book "The Bell Curve" and it made me think jeez- maybe there is something radically different about the brains of different races. The Bell curve said that Asian IQs were a bit higher, African a bit lower. It's since been repudiated as a bunch of statistical garbage - but some of it had sunk in.

Then I read an article on why humans have different skin color which blew me away. It's all to do with melanin and vitamin D. In Africa where you don't need a lot of clothes- brown skin blocks most of the radiation and you get the right amount of melanin all over your body.

In places like Norway- where you are wearing a big parks- you have to get the maximum amount of radiation you can get from your exposed skin, which is very little- so brown skin loses in favor of white skin that can absorb the sun in a more concentrated area.

Over the years, people with white skin in cold areas were selected for through evolutionary processes. (I suspect brown skinned people in Norway would suffer more vitamin deficiency related disease).

That's all it is - that's the basis of our skin color differences - when you understand that, racism goes out the window. Sources? You want sources? bah.

^arsenault

(2)I had never heard of the up-right stance exposing people to less UV-radiation (as Buzdos mentioned), but I do know UV-radiation plays a big role in one common difference between people, melanin aka skin color. The closer you get to the equator (or areas where the ozone layer is naturally weaker) the darker the native inhabitant's skin becomes. UV-radiation has always been around, a thicker atmosphere will block more of it, but not all of it.

(3)Usually changes evolve out of the existing form. Though different ape and human morphology are very similar. Slight changes in the structure of the pelvis, legs, feet and arms are more likely to happen over time than say sprouting two more pair of arms. Between people there are very slight differences in the morphology of these structures. Not enough to make any readily noticeable difference, but they're there. The only instances I'm aware of where people have had extra limbs involves unborn children failing to separate during fetal development.

(4)It was the lack of trees that made being upright and advantageous trait (as far as seeing is concerned). During the earliest stages of human evolution the jungles and forests started receding and gave rise to open grasslands/savanna. Some apes continued to live in what was left of the forests and jungles, being upright wasn't adaptive there so uprightness never evolved in them. For those in the savanna environment where trees were few and far between being able to constantly be upright did prove beneficial.

On the issue of hunting:
Gorillas can move quickly and they are powerful, but this form of behavior is for defensive purposes and not adaptive to hunting. Most prey animals are also very quick, and have the stamina to maintain that quickness longer than a gorrila.

Humans are not exceptionally quick, but they do have the stamina. In modern hunter gatherer societies a common strategy for hunting is to cash an animal into exhaustion. Wolves actually often use a similar strategy. In open grassland the animal can use a quick burst of speed to get away, but the people can still see it and chase after it. Now with most of us our hearts will blow out like the sides of old tires if we run more than 2 miles distance, but we live an extremely sedentary life compared to hunter gather groups. So its easy to look at yourself and say 'there's no way I could run a gazelle into exhaustion', and you'd be right, but if your way of life required you run for long distances, instead of sitting behind a computer, for your survival I can guarantee your body would be in much better shape.

I believe the current theory of why we initially evolved uprightness doesn't include hunting. The ability to see better in a grassland environment and the ability to carry things and move reasonably well at the same were the early motivators. The possibility to hunt, successfully, became more important later on. I'd liken it to ape hands, great for swinging about in the trees but also pretty good for picking up and manipulating things.

On another note I'd like to say I hope nobody takes the things I've said as ridicule, I've been trying to respond to points of contention/criticism by explaining things as I understand them. And if I seem long winded its not because I'm trying to prove how superior/right I am, it is simply because I enjoy talking about the subject.

>> ^arsenault185:
Ignorant dumb fuck? Well, since he was able to mention 3 separate theories, then i would have to say hes not ignorant. Dumb? meh. He couldn't formulate a sentence to save his life. Fuck? yeah hes a fuck for giving creationists a bad name.
There is plenty of scientific fact to prove God and plenty to disprove and support evolution, life seeding, or other methods.
The biggest one that comes into my head is, if evolution were true, than large series of small mutations would have had to take place over millions of years. Well, in recorded history, there have been very few if any, mutations that led to a positive change in the biological make up of an organism. However, there have been more than enough mutations to argue against evolution. Heres a video that shows such mutations. Granted some of these may have been caused my chemicals and shit, affecting the fetal development, but things like this also occur in nature.
Now humans have evidently peaked in what we are capable of "evolving" to despite what Heroes and X-Men have to say. Because after thousands and thousands of years of recorded history, there seem to be no further evolutions, besides from rare genetic abnormalities, which are good for nothing more than conversation starters.
So if evolution is real, in the sense that man is "the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys having butt-sex with a fish-squirrel," then why did we stop evolving? Evolutionists say that evolution took place over millions of years. But man has only been around for a fraction of that. That means that the "missing link" isn'/t that far behind us, and was more than likely around for a long time as well. Another hole to the evolution theory is the "missing link" itself. Its not like there were only one or two of these man-apes. There had to be thousands of them in order to generate a populace capable of surviving the thousands of years it took to evolve into humans. So why is it we cant find them? What the hell is this about?
I could go on forever. You wont catch me berating others for their beliefs, even thought they might differ from mine. So to call some one an "Ignorant dumb fuck" for not agreeing with you, doesn't exactly help your argument.


One of the points they were trying to make to the guy in the video, which the caller completely seemed oblivious to, was that simply disproving evolution does not mean creationism is true. Creationism needs its own evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny before it can be considered true. It's not a coin with only two possibilities.

I'm assuming your first argument is that evolution can't be true because we've been unable to record it happening over time. Recorded history is an extremely small amount of time, and detailed accounts of human and animal biology have been fairly rare except since the last 100-200 years. That's really not even enough time to adequately observe small changes. You'd have to know exactly where and when to look at every point in time along history, and there would have to had have been someone there to record the exact change at each point. And what might you end up with? The brown nosed rock lizard is 1 cm longer on average than it was 4000 years ago.

Also most of the "mutations" in your video appear to be conjoined, aka two or more animals joined together because they failed to separate somewhere in the incubation process.

Also you seem to be under the impression evolution occurs at a constant rate, and at a constant rate among all species. I don't think any evolutionist worth their weight in salt thinks that. Some animals change much faster than other (like bacteria) others change much slower. Though crocodiles have changed very, very little over the millions of years they've been around. And just because people don't have laser eyes doesn't mean we have stopped evolving and reached our peak. There are tons of minor genetic differences floating around in the human species right now. Some people are taller than others, some are smarter, some have darker melanin others more readily store fat. Given the right condition one of these traits could be comes essential to survival.

This brings me to another point, just because a new condition develops doesn't mean it immediately becomes the new standard for whatever species. The a trait which later becomes and adaptive one, can exist in a species over millions of years, it is only when it becomes more advantageous does that trait become the new standard for the species. For example, if for some reason being tall became and advantageous trait, to the point where short people were much less successful at reproducing, people would become taller, and after a million or so years of this you'd almost never see a short person. My point is tall people already exist in great numbers in our population, there just isn't anything to make being tall enough of an advantage (or short enough of a disadvantage) to where the human species would collectively become tall.

And I see in the time it's taken me to write this, a few other people have responded. Hopefully quick response time for internet discussions doesn't become a mark for survival, or I'm in trouble :-(

I'm with you Smibbo. Technically, we are all colored people, except for albinos (uncolored?). The use of this word colored was not an overt attempt to attack African-Americans, but rather just a subtle internalized prejudice. I'm not getting bogged down, I was just using this as an example of how everyone is subject to internalized, systemic, cultural blah blah blah racism. I'm sure there are better examples. This is obviously a tough thing for people to accept.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
...and technically speaking, "black people" has just as much implication of "color"
being a dark skin hue means you have more melanin. that means you are, in fact, colored. That's just fact and saying so has no racist implication on its face. The reason "colored" to describe black people is a negative phrase is because of it's history of use. American Natives called themselves "red man" for a long time before we came over in boats and starting decimating them. there was a time in history when saying "colored" was preferable. Then it was "negro" then it was "person of color" - do not get too bogged down in hair-splitting over old terms. call people what they want to be called and worry more about actions. I don't use the term "african american" unless I know for a fact that the person's heritage hails from an African country. I learned this from having several friends whose heritage was from the carribean and east indies. "black" is still acceptable because its descriptive, no more no less. if they had chosen "colored" we would be using it and denigrating the term "black" *shrug*

Er-cell, this shit is fall out funny, these crackers just forget how goddamn silly their melanine-deprived asses can be sometimes, they can't help it, they's all damaged goods.....welcome to the sift, hinterland brother-I want that damn Twinkie machine, you got a paypal account?

smibbos right.Folks with more melanin have more beautiful skin. poor, pathetic uber white folks....the sun is yer enemy, and our nostrils and lips are too goddamn narrow, too!! ( Best no worse for the wear grannies in here were the Nubians.....poor cracker..all the Dove in the world won't save you from the ravages of time-

Yeah, because my friend chose to be gay when he had feelings for his male classmates at the age of 7? As if he could even understand it. Just because you can't tell homosexuality by skin color, that doesn't mean people are not born gay.

As a side note, when did you choose to become a heterosexual? And why exactly did you choose that lifestyle?

In reply to this comment by choggie:
"Substitute the word "homosexual" with the word "Negro"

Tired of idgits making this comparison....
born black, not gay.....sorry kids, imprints are a motherfucker....

What's in your sexuality?? It ain't melanin or the lack thereof-

"Substitute the word "homosexual" with the word "Negro"

Tired of idgits making this comparison....
born black, not gay.....sorry kids, imprints are a motherfucker....

What's in your sexuality?? It ain't melanin or the lack thereof-

Heads-up display on my Ray-Ban Pentium 12's, melanin-polarization modifications, anti-grav sneekers, and a couple of cloned organs in the fridgy-widge.....good to go-